Carbon pricing to start July 1. 2012

[17 floors up]

Tony Abbott is the only clueless one here mate.

[aaronaugi1]

Originally Posted by CP Doom

Denmark is also building coalfired power plants becuase their wind turbines are a useless failure.

Evidence?

I can't seem to find anything on this; which I assume would be a big news story considering Denmark's push towards renewable energy.

[Perth4life]

no shit, and when i typed in "success of green energy denmark" i got a shitload of articles in google talking about the success of wind power


also remember seeing something on either sbs or the abc about denmarks green initiatives recently and how successful they were, i also came across a lot of denmark case studies as a success (peer review journal articles BTW!) when i was doing an assignment on renewables for an environmental science unit at unit..

[Marty_]

Originally Posted by 17 floors up

All the data points to the last decade or so being the warmest on record - the trend is there.

1998 was the hottest year on record. Most satellites, including data from HadCRUT, RSS and UAH indicate that. Furthermore, they indicate a slight cooling trend since then. Sure, it's not significant, but it shows that the planet is not getting hotter year on year like so many seem to believe for whatever reason.

Scientists say the planet has been getting hotter for millions of years. They also say that it was hotter during the medieval warm period before human activity could possibly have affected the climate. Suddenly, however, the warming is human-caused and will destroy the world.

Putting all that aside, however, Australia's contribution to cutting world carbon output cannot possibly have any meaningful effect. Stalling global warming would require the shut-down of half (well, more actually, but let's be conservative) of the global economy if it is indeed caused by humans.

Furthermore, I note those in support are increasingly retreating to the "it'll spawn green industries" line (because no other justification is tenable). Why then was Abbott's thought process to incentivise green industry development with grants etc so wrong? That is the philosophy underpinning the Liberal party's climate change policy.

[aaronaugi1]

Originally Posted by Marty_

1998 was the hottest year on record. Most satellites, including data from HadCRUT, RSS and UAH indicate that. Furthermore, they indicate a slight cooling trend since then. Sure, it's not significant, but it shows that the planet is not getting hotter year on year like so many seem to believe for whatever reason.

Scientists say the planet has been getting hotter for millions of years. They also say that it was hotter during the medieval warm period before human activity could possibly have affected the climate. Suddenly, however, the warming is human-caused and will destroy the world.

Putting all that aside, however, Australia's contribution to cutting world carbon output cannot possibly have any meaningful effect. Stalling global warming would require the shut-down of half (well, more actually, but let's be conservative) of the global economy if it is indeed caused by humans.

The earth has been a lot hotter than it is now and also a lot cooler.

The key thing here is that when it's warmed and cooled it has been wedded to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Always.

CO2 has never (as far as we can tell) gone above 300ppm. The likely human CO2 output if we continue this trend could be higher than 1000ppm by 2100.

So while it is cooler now than it has been in the past (even prior to human development), if it continues to be linked with CO2 levels, it will almost certainly exceed previous highs in the coming century.

The obligatory Al Gore graph to illustrate

image hosted on flickr

[Marty_]

Originally Posted by aaronaugi1

The key thing here is that when it's warmed and cooled it has been wedded to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Always.

Certainly. But CO2 has always increased as a result of warming... Warming hasn't necessarily increased as a result of CO2... Which makes perfect sense if you think about it.

[aaronaugi1]

Originally Posted by Marty_

Certainly. But CO2 has always increased as a result of warming... Warming hasn't necessarily increased as a result of CO2... Which makes perfect sense if you think about it.

Also, Al Gore has been taken to court and proven wrong/to have lied on more than 30 counts. I'm not a big fan of his work.

The data present in the graph isn't his. He made assertions that were misleading. You can make whatever you like of the graph.

Your first comment is correct. But it works both ways. CO2 helps to make the world hotter and colder in the same kind of way the "invisible hand" of markets does with prices. When it gets to hot, CO2 diminishes and cools the planet. When it is too cold, the opposite. That is natural. (see Daisyworld Theory).

The big question is, what happens when you take a natural cycle that's never gone over 300ppm and push it to 1000ppm? I would think something quite severe.

[AtD]

Originally Posted by Levathian

Howard took that to an election. The people voted for it.

So did Rudd. A bit late, yes.

[CP Doom]

From Wikipedia, Wind power provided 18.9% of electricity production and 24.1% of generation capacity in Denmark in 2008,[1] Denmark was a pioneer in developing commercial wind power during the 1970s, and today almost half of the wind turbines around the world are produced by Danish manufacturers such as Vestas and Siemens Wind Power along with many component suppliers.[2]


The rest has to be produced by some other means. It is either produced by coal power plants in Denmark or by coal power plants in Germany or Sweden. And their own energy corp. is not above exporting its "dirty coal technology" elsewhere in Europe.

[motion]

this is NOT Europe! This IS Australia! We dont want a carbon tax- NEXT!

[Marty_]

Originally Posted by aaronaugi1

The big question is, what happens when you take a natural cycle that's never gone over 300ppm and push it to 1000ppm? I would think something quite severe.

My question is: what do you have to do to reduce carbon output so severely? Certainly a carbon tax is a step so insufficient it's moot and ridiculous.

Additionally, Carbon is a natural product that's necessary for life. Carbon-rich environments are rich in biodiversity and are where life thrives. Who says it'll be so catastrophic? Seems a fairly stretched inference to me.

[Marty_]

Originally Posted by AtD

"There will never, ever be a GST."

I never condone any lie, but to be fair, John Howard took the GST to an election and was elected off a policy platform that included its introduction.

Gillard has won an election on a policy platform that absolutely ruled out a carbon tax. She has duped the public.

The two situations would be comparable if Gillard took the tax to the next election and got the mandate of the people.

[redbaron_012]

I can see the headlines now........February 2050, Late news...ddddddtddd, because Aussies introduced Carbon tax way back in 2011 the Earths temperature is now 100.000th of a degree cooler.........bless their little hearts...........shame the place is broke now and their people live in caves...without fire of course ! they only eat raw leaves as cows were banned after they found out they fart too much !

[Melb_aviator]

Originally Posted by Perth4life

well i can't realise use a bigger sample then what i've asked can i? should i make up things in order to look better? idiot



the amount of top scientists who all agree it's real is huge, the amount who don't is minute in comparison.. the science is there, just because you're short sighted doesn't mean everyone else has to be

Well I wouldnt go around calling me an idiot, when you made such a statement in the first place which meant nothing, and you tried to use as a form of evidence. Groundbreaking it was

Science is one thing, but theres many questions out there still that still need to be addressed. Ive read that many conflicting bits of data, and associated reports, that these days its hard to believe anyone.

In the end, this is not a fight about the climate, it becomes a battle of wills between governments, and their populations. Im sure you will be thrilled if your job is lost, or you have no money to pay for anything, because of a misguided effort of climate politics gone bad. Thats the risk here.

Dont expect everyone to sit there and be excited about being green, if those around the world who can really make the decisive difference have no intension of playing fair.

[Melb_aviator]

Originally Posted by Marty_

I never condone any lie, but to be fair, John Howard took the GST to an election and was elected off a policy platform that included its introduction.

Gillard has won an election on a policy platform that absolutely ruled out a carbon tax. She has duped the public.

The two situations would be comparable if Gillard took the tax to the next election and got the mandate of the people.

I did laugh in an interview on radio with Julia, when she tried to say that she had a mandate from the people to do this. When the presenter quized her about this, pointing out the obvious flaws (not a majority, going against an election promise), she then tried to say that Australians are worried about the climate. Very interesting school of thought there Julia

Maybe this is all just part of the Green industries agenda, trying to profit from the doom. Even if it is, and all these great ideas are thought up here, the things will be made in China anyway, so there goes those great gains we hoped for. Anyone that thinks China will disadvantage itself in as big of a way that it would have to do to be of any use, is beyond insane. They have shown that the currency is even off limits for change, as it would possibly harm the governments goals, and ultimately their grip on power, so I think it shows how far they will go.

[Citystyle]

Originally Posted by CP Doom

Denmark is also building coalfired power plants becuase their wind turbines are a useless failure.

Doesn't help that they are a nuclear free zone. Given they lack our long days Nuclear would be their best solution going forward.

A Carbon price is about so much more than emissions produced during power generation and that's what scares people from the conservative side of politics. A Carbon price will be applicable in the medium term to directly include all mineral exploitation, construction, fuel services and manufacturing and in the long term will directly effect every medium and small business and household.

Without question a price on Carbon is driven by the need to find adaptive solutions to the issue's relating to resource sustainability and that directly conflicts with every nations current economic model. Depending on who you listen to this model will or will not become redundant in the next one hundred years as fuel costs rise.

Nations that insulate themselves from fuel and resource shocks will have more stable prices and subsequently a higher standard of living. If done right I see no reason why a carbon price will hurt our competitiveness in the resource sector.

The issue of "mandate" in a minority government is an irrelevance, since she was placed in power by the house and for that reason she is answerable to the independents and greens. As such it's hypocritical of the opposition to make claims about “broken promises” when they themselves offered the same seated members similar deals to gain power.

[pikopancho]

Originally Posted by Melb_aviator

I did laugh in an interview on radio with Julia, when she tried to say that she had a mandate from the people to do this. When the presenter quized her about this, pointing out the obvious flaws (not a majority, going against an election promise), she then tried to say that Australians are worried about the climate. Very interesting school of thought there Julia

Maybe this is all just part of the Green industries agenda, trying to profit from the doom. Even if it is, and all these great ideas are thought up here, the things will be made in China anyway, so there goes those great gains we hoped for. Anyone that thinks China will disadvantage itself in as big of a way that it would have to do to be of any use, is beyond insane. They have shown that the currency is even off limits for change, as it would possibly harm the governments goals, and ultimately their grip on power, so I think it shows how far they will go.

Fact is she hasn't fulfilled the commitment she made at the election to not introduce a carbon tax and now she's implying that the hung parliament has forced her to go down this path.

Either:
A. She had this in mind all along but lied at the election campaign thinking the policy was (GST style) electorally unpalatable or;
B. She was forced into this position by the Greens who negotiated such a policy in return for their support of a Labor minority government.

I suspect that the latter alternative is more likely and that she has probably bowed to Greens pressure on this issue in return for likely Greens support of her broader Government agenda...would also explain getting this out of the way early in her term.

Gillard has probably done this to appease Brown making his party more likely to vote with the government in the future. Her hand is really forced...you could argue that she could play an iron-fisted game with Brown thinking that the Greens will always support the "lesser of the two-evils" but that would more than likely further destabilise what is already a fragile government which will require (Post-July) the Greens to get their legislation through the Senate:

LNP 34
ALP 31
GRN 9
DLP 1
IND 1

31+9 is the equation required in the Senate...and obviously Gillard is posturing to make her government as effective in getting legislation through as possible. No wonder Abbott is playing with the 'Brown has the real power' line...unfortunately I have to concede he has an argument here.

The carbon price/tax is part of the 'effective government' deal methinks. And given this is probably the price the Greens will pay to support other government policies be on the lookout for Green members constantly reminding us of their influence on these reforms.

PS. Anyone else think its funny/hypocritical to have a carbon tax whilst continuing to sell tonnes of coal to China in particular...I'd call it champagne environmentalism

[Citystyle]

Originally Posted by Melb_aviator

Dont expect everyone to sit there and be excited about being green, if those around the world who can really make the decisive difference have no intension of playing fair.

As a resource rich nation the risks are allot lower, as far as production costs go as times go on, they will be exported more and more to manufacturing and resource hungry nations, the issue that exists is if we increase the burden on business to quickly we will find that we are making them less competitive. You're ultimate suggestion relies on an inflated price, something that is improbable without the free trading of carbon credits.

These doomsday economic scenario's need no evidence before they are broadcast around the nation so that every self serving two teeth yokel can have a cry about things they admittedly have no idea about.

[Citystyle]

Originally Posted by pikopancho

PS. Anyone else think its funny/hypocritical to have a carbon tax whilst continuing to sell tonnes of coal to China in particular...I'd call it champagne environmentalism

Depends how long we go alone for. If our consumers are paying more for goods and services because we are putting a price on carbon then it's hardly a champagne moment.

[Citystyle]

Originally Posted by Marty_

Gillard has won an election on a policy platform that absolutely ruled out a carbon tax. She has duped the public.

She won the election? She won no mandate to legislate at the polls, thus we had all those angry letters to the editor demanding another election.

Originally Posted by Marty_

The two situations would be comparable if Gillard took the tax to the next election and got the mandate of the people.

If Gillard won a majority in the house then they would be comparable.